Wartime Service Recognition Bill

Moved second reading of Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of the wartime service recognition act.

At its core, this bill addresses a simple but profound question: How do we, as a country, recognize the service and sacrifice of those who served in uniform and were sent into harm’s way?

For many Canadians, the answer seems obvious. When we think of conflicts like the Persian Gulf or Afghanistan, we think of war. We think of those who served in uniform, operating in dangerous conditions, facing real risks and, in some cases, making the ultimate sacrifice.

But here is the reality: Canada has not formally designated wartime service since the Korean War. That gap between what Canadians believe and what our system recognizes is what this bill seeks to address.

This is not about rewriting history. It is not about assigning labels after the fact. And, to be clear, this bill does not create new or affect any existing benefits or pensions in any way. It does not amend the Veterans Well-being Act or the Pension Act. It is not about compensation; it is about recognition. It is about ensuring that when those in uniform are sent into combat or combat-like conditions, their service is assessed based on what they actually faced, not what the mission was called at the time. As one veteran put it, “We didn’t need someone to declare it a war for it to feel like one.”

Honourable senators, recognition does matter. This is not an abstract issue. It is about the men and women in uniform whom we ask to serve. It is about those who lived through these experiences and who continue to live with them.

As Afghanistan veteran Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Dean Tremblay said, “We were at war. We were engaged . . . daily . . . against a determined and armed enemy,” and dependent on trust in one another, the chain of command and Canada itself.

That trust matters, and recognition is part of that trust.

This bill is grounded in a simple principle: Recognition should reflect what those in uniform were sent to do, what they faced, not what the missions were called. This is the principle before us today.

Colleagues, the gap that this bill addresses did not emerge overnight. It reflects how the nature of conflict has changed and how our systems have not kept pace.

Since the Korean War, Canada has participated in numerous operations that involved real risk, real danger and real sacrifice. In Afghanistan alone, 158 Canadian Armed Forces members lost their lives. Thousands more returned home with physical and psychological injuries.

In the Persian Gulf, Canadian forces were engaged in combat operations, enforcing sanctions, conducting air missions and operating in environments where the threat to life was real and constant. Yet, despite these realities, our system has not formally recognized this service as wartime service.

This has created inconsistency. It has created confusion. Most importantly, it has created a gap between lived experience and official recognition. That is the gap this bill seeks to close.

One Persian Gulf War veteran, Warrant Officer (Retired) Mike McGlennon, described the moment he realized the gap between what he lived and what the system recognized. He recalled a conversation years later with a fellow veteran: “We went to war, right?” “Yes, of course.” “Well, according to the government, we have never been to war.” He described that moment as feeling “. . . like I had just been punched in the face.”

Honourable senators, this is what a lack of recognition feels like.

Mr. McGlennon went on to describe what many veterans experience as a result: a loss of pride, a sense of disconnect, even what clinicians now understand as moral injury.

This bill is about preventing that. Persian Gulf veterans have been clear that what they experienced was war in every meaningful sense. Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada said the following about this bill: “This framework addresses historical oversights and ensures veterans’ service is recognized with the dignity, consistency and accuracy it deserves.”

This bill is deliberately focused and deliberately disciplined. It does not create new or affect any existing benefits, pensions or compensation. It does not amend the Veterans Well-being Act or the Pension Act. Those are important questions, but they are not the question before us, colleagues.

The question before us is simple: Does Canada recognize wartime service based on what those in uniform were sent to do and what they faced?

This bill ensures that question is answered clearly, consistently and transparently. The bill does not attempt to declare specific missions as wartime service. Instead, it establishes a national framework, one that is structured, principled and grounded in evidence. At its heart, this bill says something very simple: Recognition should be based on what those in uniform actually faced.

The objective criteria in the bill focus on the conditions of service and include: exposure to hostile or life-threatening environments; the nature, scale, duration and intensity of operations; exposure to conditions capable of causing physical or psychological injury; and the presence of armed conflict.

As Afghanistan veteran Colonel (Retired) Mark Gasparotto noted in reflecting on military service:

Unlimited liability means the legal requirement for CAF members to accept that . . . they may have to risk their lives . . . to achieve success in the military missions assigned by the Government of Canada.

Honourable senators, if we ask those in uniform to accept that level of responsibility, we must ensure that their service is recognized based on the reality of what they actually faced.

The bill’s four criteria are not arbitrary. They reflect, in part, the findings of the Standing House of Commons Committee on Veterans Affairs, which emphasized that recognition must be based on what those in uniform experienced, not how missions were labelled. They draw from how our allies, like Australia, assess service: based on risk, conditions and exposure to harm.

But let me be clear: This bill does not import another country’s system. It takes inspiration from best practices and adapts them to the Canadian context. Importantly, these criteria are not the final word. They are a floor. The bill requires the government to develop the full framework through mandatory consultation with veterans, the Canadian Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs, military experts and historians and other stakeholders, including those who served alongside or in support of Canadian Armed Forces operations.

This includes, in a respectful and appropriate way, acknowledging that others — such as members of the RCMP — have, in some cases, served in support of Canadian military operations. The bill does not predetermine outcomes, but it ensures those voices are heard in the development of the framework. This is how we get it right: by grounding decisions in lived experience, informed expertise and open consultation.

The bill also establishes clear timelines. Within one year, the government must develop and table the framework. Within 180 days after that, it must review all Canadian Armed Forces operations since July 27, 1953. Going forward, operations must be assessed within a defined period. These timelines matter. They ensure this work is not delayed or deferred. For every day we wait, another veteran dies, and of course, their service is not acknowledged.

This work will not sit on a shelf.

Equally important is transparency. The bill requires that recommendations be made public, along with a clear explanation of how the criteria were applied. It requires the creation of a consolidated, publicly accessible list of all operations reviewed and their status. This is about accountability. Decisions will no longer happen behind closed doors. They will be public, explained and accounted for.

Honourable senators, this approach reflects a broader principle: that recognition should not depend on discretion alone. It should follow from a clear, consistent and transparent process.

Some may ask why this matters. It matters because recognition is not symbolic in the abstract. It is personal. It speaks to whether those who served feel that their country understands what they were asked to do.

In Afghanistan, 158 Canadian Armed Forces members lost their lives. Thousands more returned home with injuries, both visible and invisible. But beyond the numbers is the lived reality.

As Afghanistan veteran Mark Gasparotto put it:

We knew what we were in. We were fighting a determined enemy. This was not theoretical risk. This was daily reality.

Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Tremblay reflected not just on the battlefield, but on the lasting impact:

That trust extended beyond the battlefield to our families, who carried the burden of uncertainty, separation and long‑term consequences long after deployments ended.

Honourable senators, this bill is about ensuring the reality of Canadian Armed Forces members is recognized. This bill does not seek to reopen old debates, assign blame or dictate outcomes. What it does is create a fair and structured way to assess service, one that reflects the realities of modern conflict.

It also aligns with commitments already made. In their 2025 election platform, the government committed to expanding recognition of service by reviewing the designation of certain missions, including in the Persian Gulf, to ensure that veterans’ sacrifices in conflict zones are properly recognized.

This bill gives effect to that commitment in a way that is transparent, accountable and grounded in principle. It does so while respecting the roles of government. The Minister of National Defence assesses and makes recommendations. Cabinet makes final decisions. What changes is not who decides but how those decisions are made.

Colleagues, let me conclude. At its heart, this bill is about fairness and respect for veterans and those who served in uniform. It is about ensuring that those who served in comparable conditions are recognized in a comparable way. It is about closing a gap that has existed for decades, quietly but meaningfully, for those who lived it. It is also about who we are as a country and our commitment to those who serve.

We often speak, rightly, of Canadian values: service, sacrifice and responsibility. We take pride in the men and women who wear the uniform, who represent Canada abroad and who accept risks on our behalf. But pride must be matched by recognition. When we send those in uniform into dangerous and uncertain environments, we carry a responsibility not only to support them while they serve but also to recognize that service fully and honestly when they return. This bill is one step toward meeting that responsibility.

Let me be clear: This bill does not create new benefits or pensions. It is about recognition and recognition alone. It also does not claim to answer every question. It does not attempt to settle every debate. But it does establish a path forward grounded in fairness, transparency and respect. It is a path that says: We will look at what you face when we send you on a mission, listen to your experience and ensure that recognition reflects that reality.

Honourable senators, we ask Canadians in uniform to accept unlimited liability, to go where they are sent, to face risks most of us will never know and to do so in service of this great country of ours. In return, we owe them something fundamental: recognition that reflects the reality of their service.

Colleagues, this is not about how service was labelled. It is about whether we are prepared to recognize it for what it was — and to do so fairly, consistently and without hesitation. That is the standard this bill sets, and it is one we should meet.

Thank you.

Senator Yussuff, will you take a question?

Yes.

Thank you.

The veterans who came to talk to me about this were Persian Gulf veterans. Before they came to see me in my office, they spent eight years advocating for the government to recognize their service and do the appropriate thing.

As they were telling me their stories, I was scratching my head out of disbelief about what I was hearing, but, more importantly, about why it seemed so complicated. Since the Korean War, I believe we have sent many of our Armed Forces members into battle on behalf of our nation. It seems very logical to me that when they come home, we should recognize them for their contribution on behalf of our nation and do so in a way that respects the reality of our values as a country. Despite their best advocacy, that has not happened.

It was on their behalf that we drafted this bill. They were very clear about one thing: While they were advocating for themselves — they have an organization called the Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada — they wanted to ensure that all those who had served before them, and those who will serve after them, are equally recognized. They said:

Senator, if you could draft a bill to reflect that reality, not only would you be serving us, but you would be serving all veterans who are relying on the good service of parliamentarians to do the right thing.